Appeal 3300009
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
5 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
side extension at first floor level pursuant to Planning Application EPF/0213/21.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
To clarify, the reference to planning application EPF/0213/21 in the description above relates to a previous application and is referred to on the submitted plans as existing elevations and floor plans.
Section 04
Main Issue
I consider that the main issue is the effect of the extension on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site is a detached house and comprises one of three that originally would have been the same design. These feature a Dutch gable front elevation. The houses are consecutively numbered and the appeal site, No 7, and No 6 have previously added dormer extensions that detract to some degree from the original Dutch gable feature. No 5 remains unaltered in this respect when viewed from the road. [site address] is a busy road and the appeal site sits among a linear row of houses of different design on the eastern side of the road.
The house was undergoing refurbishment and alteration at the time of my site visit and has been white rendered with grey roof tiles. The proposed extension would be at roof level and the roofing material would blend in with those of the existing roof. To some degree the shape of the roof has been significantly altered by the dormer extensions but despite the unsympathetic additions of the dormers the general original shape of the roof can still be identified. Adding to this would alter the shape and erode yet further the original character of the dwelling.
Local Plan1 Policy DBE10 requires residential extensions to complement, and where appropriate, enhance the appearance of the street scene and the existing building. The emerging Epping Forest Local Plan2 is referred to but although this has been subject to independent examination in 2019 it has yet to be formally finalised and adopted. Although the Council have afforded significant weight to Policy DM9, which indicates a requirement for a high quality standard of design, its status is limited. Having said this, the National Planning Policy Framework3 emphasises the importance of good design and so I have given due consideration to this matter.
[name] do not consider that the previous alterations to this house, in particular the dormers, complement the original design of the dwelling, I do not consider that any further erosion is acceptable. The house is very visible in the street scene and the added extension would be a prominent addition. In the interests of retaining some degree of the original character of the dwelling, I do not consider that the proposal would be consistent with the policies referred to.
I have considered all other matters raised but none alter my conclusion. I conclude that the proposed extension would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, it would conflict with Policy DBE10 and therefore the appeal fails.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 226No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 14 July 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 4 July 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3300009
- Application reference
- PL/EPF/0386/22
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Epping Forest District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000072
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 28 May 2022
- Valid date
- 28 May 2022
- Start date
- 16 June 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 April 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 14 July 2022
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 17810
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21